Someone recently told me that finding a fossil in the wrong fossil layer would be proof that evolution is wrong. Well. Here it is. And it's not just a single fossil, or even a few. They have found entire fossil groups in the wrong geologic layers. One example was found in three different layers, on three different continents. How do supporters of evolution explain this? They don't even try. They just ignore it. Typical.

At 6/12/2015 4:03:39 AM, B0HICA wrote:Someone recently told me that finding a fossil in the wrong fossil layer would be proof that evolution is wrong. Well. Here it is. And it's not just a single fossil, or even a few. They have found entire fossil groups in the wrong geologic layers. One example was found in three different layers, on three different continents. How do supporters of evolution explain this? They don't even try. They just ignore it. Typical.

The fact that the fossils of some life forms have been found in older strata than which they were previously confined is so Earth shattering expected that I don't know what to say.

The conclusion of the page asks:

"Are the foregoing examples of stratigraphic-range extensions, and thus the corresponding randomisation of global fossil succession, the exception or the rule?"

I am not going to bother taking the time to find out how many fossils have been classified to time periods of existing. But lets take a very, very conservative estimate of 200 (certainly there are at least 200 dinosaurs that have been classified by time period). This number is most likely orders of magnitude off.

The creationist website gives 7 examples. That means a best case (for creationist) is a 3.5% rate of stratigraphic-range extension with it much likely being much lower. Exception or the rule... hmmm...

Dasycladalean algaeAs a result of a recent find, a dramatic increase in the stratigraphic range of Dasycladalean algae has occurred. Dasycladales are members of the algal family Dasycladaceae. It consists of 175 live and extinct genera. The extension of this plant has been into presumably-older strata:

"Uncatoella possesses a suite of features usually associated with late Mesozoic and Cenozoic Dasycladales, and our proposed relationships imply very large range extensions (200-350 Myr) to some groups." 7

This stratigraphic-range extension is dramatic, and equivalent to more than half of the entire Phanerozoic geologic column. Moreover, this discovery upends earlier notions of stratomorphic intermediates that were believed to be true of the evolutionary history of plant-reproductive traits:

"Choristospore gametangiophores are usually associated with Mesozoic and Cenozoic Dasycladales, but the new data on Uncatoella show that this form of reproduction had already developed by the Early Devonian." 8

Many evolutionists, and also unfortunately some professing creationists, have made much of the presumed significance of stratomorphic intermediates. But, as the above example proves vividly, it takes only one well-placed life-form to completely demolish existing notions of stratomorphic intermediates. A certain grade of complexity can be moved back considerably earlier in time with just one discovery of fossils! In the above example, a grade of morphological complexity, formerly believed to be of relatively recent origins (Mesozoic and Cenozoic) suddenly has become much more ancient (Devonian).

Dasycladalean algaeAs a result of a recent find, a dramatic increase in the stratigraphic range of Dasycladalean algae has occurred. Dasycladales are members of the algal family Dasycladaceae. It consists of 175 live and extinct genera. The extension of this plant has been into presumably-older strata:

"Uncatoella possesses a suite of features usually associated with late Mesozoic and Cenozoic Dasycladales, and our proposed relationships imply very large range extensions (200-350 Myr) to some groups." 7

This stratigraphic-range extension is dramatic, and equivalent to more than half of the entire Phanerozoic geologic column. Moreover, this discovery upends earlier notions of stratomorphic intermediates that were believed to be true of the evolutionary history of plant-reproductive traits:

Dasycladales is a green algae. The earliest fossil record is cambian, which is even earlier than what this author posts. That would mean it was found in almost 100% of the Phanerozoic.http://www.eol.org...

I'm not entirely certain exactly what he is referring to when he says that the study he quotes as upending a theory that Dasycladales are part of a plant reproductive evolutionary tract. Unfortunately he is generic in his claim and there is nothing specific to refer to.

It is thought that all land plants are descendant to green algae. The case of evolving reproductive systems goes well beyond the Dayscladales order. Here is a good site that lays the evidence of evolving green algae.https://frederikleliaert.wordpress.com...

"Choristospore gametangiophores are usually associated with Mesozoic and Cenozoic Dasycladales, but the new data on Uncatoella show that this form of reproduction had already developed by the Early Devonian." 8

Many evolutionists, and also unfortunately some professing creationists, have made much of the presumed significance of stratomorphic intermediates. But, as the above example proves vividly, it takes only one well-placed life-form to completely demolish existing notions of stratomorphic intermediates. A certain grade of complexity can be moved back considerably earlier in time with just one discovery of fossils! In the above example, a grade of morphological complexity, formerly believed to be of relatively recent origins (Mesozoic and Cenozoic) suddenly has become much more ancient (Devonian).

In short:1. He gets his info wrong. The family of algae was sooner than the paper he quotes.

2. The premise that there is no plausible explanation of an earlier ancestor to dayscladies is unsubstantiated. Simply pointing out that the earliest record of that type of algae is keeps getting earlier due to finding examples does not offer any type of evidence that there was not an ancestor to dayscladies.

3. The great leap that the earlier record of dayscladies jacks up evolution within algae as a whole is completely unsubstantiated and ignores tons of other evidence.

I see no reason to even get into the other examples seeing how his algae argument is nothing but unsubtanciated illogical leaps.

After poking around that website a little, I found an area for kids and what they teach there:

"God made each family (kind) totally different from any other family"and one family can't change into another family! God designed things that way!"

You may have heard that your distant "relatives" were animals. That"s not so! You"re a person, not an animal.

In fact, the Bible tells us that people are in their own very special "family" . . . a family that started when God created Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago!

These guys are serious idiots and are out to destroy the minds of children.

Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

That is like going to Keith Richards' website for a tutorial in getting clean and sober.

The article points out problems with using fossils ONLY in attempting to date the age of the Earth.

What about all those different forms of radiometric dating? There are dozens? And all of them always agree with each other. How can all of them be wrong? And so very very wrong, as they often reveal ages in the millions of years while the young-earther Creationists claim 6000 years! That's like the difference between radiometrically-dating something 100 years' old and then--via not a scientific but only a theologian's opinion--having them say it is one second old!

Indeed: that whole 6000 y.o. Earth deal stems form some Scottish Bishop named Ussher sitting down one day and reading the OT's genealogy. (Which, BTW, even conflicts itself in the very same source book, the Bible in other places.)

Absurdly--and also humorously, Ussher nailed not only the Year of the Creation of the Earth but also the month, date, and TIME of DAY as well! If I recall it was a Friday afternoon at 4 p.m. (!)

Stratographic range is essentially a bar of time with the earliest discovered fossile at one end, and the last (or extant life) at the other. Finding a new fossile that is before the earliest discovered fossile is not a big deal in and of itself. We haven't found every fossile there is to find, and the implication that everything we will ever find from now on will confirm to the dates of fossiles we already have or else evolution is wrong is a pretty ludicrus one. One would expect new to find fossiles that are outside of the range of ones we haev already found, or later than the fossiles we already have because we haven't found them all.

Changing timescales isn't a big deal, despite this articles claims that it is, because it confuses absolute stratographic range of one species or family, with the relative stratographic range of a collection of them.

There are many cases where ancestry is evident. Dinosaurs to birds, or therapids to mammals. With those fossiles, there is no problem extending their stratographic range a little bit, we know for example, birds and dinosaurs coexisted and have their origins before the K-T Boundary, their range has moved back a couple of times, but never back enough to cast that heridity into question. If that were not the case, for example by finding a bird prior to the obvious emergence of dinosauria; THAT would be a big deal.

Sometimes paleontologists aren't certain of the exact chain of heridity; sometimes it is unclear, or individual links are missing, and in many cases the stratographic range of various species are also used to try and determine this; as with the algae example cited. As new evidence emerges, it stands to reason that understanding of the examples will change.

Because of this, what this new evidence does, is cast into doubt the current thinking about the specific evolution of animals, the order of descendant species, and when animals lived; for very specific and justifiable reasons: we have new evidence. Large scale changes that fit outside the realm of evolution: for example a species that is evident in the fossile record FAR before the emergency of multiple inferred ancestor species; now THAT would necessarily be a big deal, and is something that this article doesn't provide.

This is not "ignored", by science or us: indeed, it is the scientists legitimately researching paleontology and evolution that find this data in the first place. The problem is that "evidence" such as this is often asserted to be a big deal by AiG and other Creationists because they are basing their conclusions on a flawed premise, as I have explained above.

This evidence, obtained by scientists, is completely compatible with evolution even though it changes what we have established as our best explanation of the progression of life forms given the evidence. Simply because we have new evidence. The concordance between the chronology and the overall nested heirarchy is not broken, even though it is VERY easy to break. It does, however, minutely change our assumptions about the specific progression.

The fossile record shows a clear progression of all species; and every discovery thus far has fit within the chronological constraints placed on life. Given the sheer volume of fossile species, the sheer volume of dating evidence, what is "ignored" is that not one fossile falls outside the constrained chronology. Not one modern mammal in the cambrian, which would be devestating to Evolution if demonstrated as true.

AiG is inherently and pathologically biased; they are forced to reject any evidence, regardless of how strong it is, if it disagrees with their position. I know this, because this is what they claim in their website.

THAT is not a source of information that holds any credibility; nor one you can trust as people who are legitimately in search of what the truth actually is.

A scientifically-conducted geological survey showing anomalous fossil presence -- perhaps corroborated by carbon-dating -- would be grounds for a publishable paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

So the correct next step would be to publish it and subject it to scientific scrutiny -- not blog about it and wait for nonscientific people to say 'Oo-err'.

Alternatively, if the conclusions were not valid, the only way to keep them credible would be to not subject them to scientific scrutiny in a peer-reviewed journal, and then rolls one's eyes about 'conspiracy theory'.

Which path has the author taken? Why do you think the author has taken it?

You don't even need to read the detail. Nothing more need be considered.

The paper claims that the appearance of fossils in stratigraphic layers is increasingly random. I gives no examples of that. There are no fossils of horses mixed with fossils of dinosaurs or anything like that. The complaint is that new fossil finds are showing that some species existed over larger ranges of time than previously known. Thats logical. When the first example of a fossil of a species is found, the range is exactly one point in time. When the second one is found, there is then a band. As more examples are found the range of time that species is known to exist will either stay the same or expand; there is no possibility it will contract. Creatures like horseshoe crabs have been around with little change for over 400 million years.

Dating is not solely by fossil progression. There are about 20 methods of dating, with radiometric dating done using about two dozen isotope pairs. There is plenty of cross checking of dates.

A Biblical flood explains little. There is only enough water on earth to raise sea level by about 600 feet, no where near the thickness of observed strata. Some sort of magic can be invoked to make water appear and disappear, but if magic is allowed, then magic used directly will produce any result imagined. That's not science.